Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines; Modification of Federal On-board Diagnostic Regulations for Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks; Extension of Acceptance of California OBD II Requirements

SUMMARY: Today's action proposes modifications to the federal on-board

diagnostics regulations, including: harmonizing the emission levels

above which a component or system is considered malfunctioning (i.e.,

the malfunction thresholds) with those of the California Air Resources

Board (CARB) OBD II requirements; mandating that EPA OBD systems fully

evaluate the entire emission control system, including the evaporative

emission control system; indefinitely extending the allowance of

deficiencies for federal OBD vehicles; indefinitely extending the

allowance of optional compliance with the California OBD II

requirements for federal OBD certification while also updating the

allowed version of those California OBD II regulations to the most

recently revised version; extending the current flexibility afforded

alternate fueled vehicles through the 2004 model year rather than

providing that flexibility only through the 1998 model year; updating

the incorporation by reference of several recommended practices

developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to incorporate

recently published versions, while also incorporating by reference two

standardization protocols developed by the International Organization

for Standardization (ISO). OBD systems in general provide substantial

ozone benefits.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 28, 1997. A public

hearing will be held on July 9, 1997. The hearing will begin at 10:00

a.m. and continue until all testimony has been presented. Requests to

present oral testimony must be received on or before June 27, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate if

possible) to: the EPA, Air Docket, Room M-1500 (Mail Code 6102),

Waterside Mall, Attn: Docket A-96-32, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC

20460.

Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in Docket No.

A-96-32. The docket is located at The Air Docket, 401 M. Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, and may be viewed in room M1500 between 8:00 a.m.

and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The telephone number is (202)

260-7548 and the facsimile number is (202) 260-4400. A reasonable fee

may be charged by EPA for copying docket material. The hearing will be

held at the Holiday Inn North Campus, 3600 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor,

MI.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Pugliese, Vehicle Programs and

Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2565

Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, Telephone 313-668-4288, or

Internet e-mail at ``[email protected].''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Electronic Availability

II. Introduction and Background

III. Requirements of the Proposed Rule

A. Federal OBD Malfunction Thresholds and Monitoring

Requirements

B. Similar Operating Conditions Window

C. Extension of Allowance of California OBD II

D. Extension of Allowance of OBD Deficiencies for Federal OBD

Vehicles

E. Provisions for Alternate Fueled Vehicles

F. Applicability

G. Update of Materials Incorporated by Reference

H. Certification Provisions

IV. Discussion of Issues

A. Federal OBD Malfunction Thresholds

B. Similar Operating Conditions Window

C. Expanded Federal OBD Monitoring Requirements

D. Extension of Allowance of California OBD II

E. Extension of Allowance of OBD Deficiencies for Federal OBD

Vehicles

F. Diagnostic Readiness Codes

G. EPA Recall Policy

H. Extension of Provisions for Alternate Fueled Vehicles

I. Update of Materials Incorporated by Reference

V. Cost Effectiveness

VI. Public Participation

A. Summary of Specific Comments Requested by EPA

B. Comments and the Public Docket

C. Public Hearing

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

C. Impact on Small Entities

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

I. Electronic Availability

Electronic copies of the preamble and the regulatory text of this

final rulemaking are available via the Internet on the Office of Mobile

Sources (OMS) Home Page (http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/). Users can find

OBD related information and documents through the following path once

they have accessed the OMS Home Page: ``Automobiles,'' ``I/M & OBD,''

``On-Board Diagnostics Files.''

Electronic copies of the preamble and the regulatory text of this

final rulemaking are also available on the Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network Bulletin

Board System (TTN BBS). Users are able to access and download TTN BBS

files on their first call. After logging onto TTN BBS, to navigate

through the BBS to the files of interest, the user must enter the

appropriate command at each of a series of menus. The steps required to

access information on this rulemaking are listed below. The service is

free, except for the cost of the phone call.

TTN BBS: 919-541-5742 (1,200--14,400 bps, no parity, eight data

bits, one stop bit). Voice help: 919-541-5384 Internet address: TELNET

ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov Off-line: Mondays from 8:00-12:00 Noon ET.

1. Technology Transfer Network Top Menu: GATEWAY TO TTN TECHNICAL

AREAS (Bulletin Boards) (Command: T)

2. TTN TECHNICAL INFORMATION AREAS: OMS-Mobile Sources Information

(Command: M)

3. OMS BBS === MAIN MENU FILE TRANSFERS: Rulemaking & Reporting

(Command: K)

4. RULEMAKING PACKAGES: Inspection & Maintenance (Command: 7)

5. Inspection & Maintenance Rulemaking Areas: File Area # . . . On-

Board Diagnostics (Command: 2)

At this stage, the system will list all available OBD Review files.

To download a file, select a transfer protocol which will match the

terminal software on your computer, then set your own software to

receive the file using that same protocol.

If unfamiliar with handling compressed (i.e., ZIP'd) files, go to

the TTN top menu, System Utilities (Command: 1) for information and the

necessary program to download in order to unZIP the files of interest

after downloading to your computer. After getting the files you want

onto your computer, you can quit TTN BBS with the oodbye command.

II. Introduction and Background

On February 19, 1993, pursuant to Clean Air Act section 202(m), 42

U.S.C. Sec. 7521(m), the EPA published a final

[[Page 28933]]

rulemaking (58 FR 9468) requiring manufacturers of light-duty vehicles

(LDVs) and light-duty trucks (LDTs) to install on-board diagnostic

(OBD) systems on such vehicles beginning with the 1994 model year. The

regulations promulgated in that final rulemaking require that

manufacturers install OBD systems which monitor emission control

components for any malfunction or deterioration causing exceedance of

certain emission thresholds, and alert the vehicle operator to the need

for repair. That rulemaking also requires that, when a malfunction

occurs, diagnostic information must be stored in the vehicle's computer

to assist the technician in diagnosis and repair.

Additionally, the original federal OBD regulations provide an

allowance for manufacturers to satisfy federal OBD requirements through

the 1998 model year by installing systems satisfying the California OBD

II requirements pertaining to those model years. Beginning with the

1999 model year, manufacturers are required to satisfy the unique

requirements of federal OBD.

In August 1996, EPA published a final rulemaking (61 FR 45898)

updating the version of the California OBD II requirements that are

acceptable for federal OBD compliance demonstration. The February 1993

final rulemaking allowed compliance with the 1992 version of California

OBD II (Mail-Out #92-56). California subsequently revised their OBD II

requirements in December of 1994. The August 1996 federal rule served

to allow compliance with the revised California OBD II requirements

(Mail-Out #95-34) rather than the 1992 version of OBD II.

In today's action, EPA is proposing a revision to the federal OBD

regulations such that the allowance of compliance with the California

OBD II regulations (excluding anti-tampering provisions) extends

indefinitely, rather than applying only through the 1998 model year.

EPA seeks this revision as a result of comments from the domestic and

major import original equipment manufacturers who claim that the

efforts to meet the unique federal OBD requirements will divert

resources away from broader OBD development and calibration efforts.

EPA believes that the benefits of a robust OBD program outweigh the

benefits of the unique requirements of the federal OBD regulations. EPA

also believes, as was noted in an August 30, 1996 final rule (61 FR

45898), that the California OBD II program fully meets the requirements

of the 1990 Clean Air Act and fulfills the intent of the federal OBD

program.

Today's action also proposes to amend federal OBD requirements to

harmonize with those of the California OBD II requirements for 1999 and

later model year light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and light-duty trucks

(LDTs). This harmonization will result in federal OBD malfunction

thresholds consistent with the California OBD II thresholds, and it

will require monitoring of all emission-related powertrain components

similar to the California OBD II regulations. EPA believes that this

harmonization is consistent with the requirements of section 202(m) of

the CAA and will not compromise the stringency of the federal OBD

program.

Also being proposed is an extension of the current flexibility

within the federal OBD requirements for alternate fueled vehicles. In a

direct final rulemaking published in March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15242), EPA

made an allowance for alternate fueled vehicles to comply with OBD

requirements to the extent feasible through the 1998 model year, with

full compliance required in the 1999 model year. With today's proposal,

the flexibility provisions of the March 1995 direct final rule will

extend through the 2004 model year, with full compliance required in

the 2005 model year.

Also being proposed is the continuation of the allowance of

deficiencies for federal OBD compliance. This allowance will extend

indefinitely. Also being proposed is an updating of materials

incorporated by reference. These materials, developed by the Society of

Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the International Organization for

Standardization (ISO), have been incorporated or proposed for

incorporation in earlier rulemakings. More recent versions have been

developed and/or published and are proposed for incorporation today.

III. Requirements of the Proposed Rule

A. Federal OBD Malfunction Thresholds and Monitoring Requirements

EPA is proposing that, beginning in the 1999 model year, OBD

systems on spark-ignition LDVs and LDTs must be able to detect and

alert the driver of the following emission-related malfunctions or

deterioration: 1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The text presented here does not constitute proposed

regulatory text, which can be viewed immediately following this

preamble.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Catalyst deterioration or malfunction before it results in an

increase in HC emissions equal to or greater than 1.5 times the HC

standard, as compared to the HC emission level measured using a

representative 4000 mile catalyst system.

(2) Engine misfire before it results in an exhaust emission

exceedance of 1.5 times the applicable standard for HC, CO or

NOX.

(3) Oxygen sensor deterioration or malfunction before it results in

an exhaust emission exceedance of 1.5 times the applicable standard for

HC, CO or NOX.

(4) Any vapor leak in the evaporative and/or refueling system

(excluding the tubing and connections between the purge valve and the

intake manifold) greater than or equal in magnitude to a leak caused by

a 0.040 inch diameter orifice shall also be detected. The absence of

evaporative purge air flow from the complete evaporative emission

control system shall also be detected.

(5) Any deterioration or malfunction occurring in a powertrain

system or component directly intended to control emissions, including

but not necessarily limited to, the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)

system, if equipped, the secondary air system, if equipped, and the

fuel control system, singularly resulting in exhaust emissions

exceeding 1.5 times the applicable emission standard for HC, CO or

NOX shall also be detected.

(6) Any other deterioration or malfunction occurring in an

electronic emission-related powertrain system or component not

otherwise described above that either provides input to or receives

commands from the on-board computer, and has a measurable impact on

emissions or is used as part of the diagnostic strategy for any other

monitored system or component. Monitoring of components required by

this paragraph shall be satisfied by employing electrical circuit

continuity checks and, for computer input components, rationality

checks (input values within manufacturer specified ranges) and, for

output components, functionality checks (proper functional response to

computer commands).

For compression-ignition engines, paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 above

would not apply.

Upon detection of a malfunction, the malfunction indicator light

(MIL) is to be illuminated and a fault code stored no later than the

end of the next driving cycle during which monitoring occurs provided

the malfunction is again detected. The only exception to this would be

if, upon Administrator approval, a manufacturer is allowed to use a

diagnostic strategy that employs statistical algorithms for malfunction

determination (e.g., Exponentially Weighted Moving Averages (EWMA)).

The Administrator considers such strategies beneficial for some

monitors because they reduce the danger of

[[Page 28934]]

illuminating the MIL falsely since more monitoring events are used in

making pass/fail decisions. However, the Administrator will only

approve such strategies provided the number of trips required for a

valid malfunction determination is not excessive (e.g., six or seven

monitoring events). Manufacturers are required to determine the

appropriate operating conditions for diagnostic system monitoring with

the limitation that monitoring conditions are encountered at least once

during the first engine start portion of the applicable Federal Test

Procedure (FTP) or a similar test cycle as approved by the

Administrator.

B. Similar Operating Conditions Window

Also being proposed today is a revision to the engine operating

conditions window associated with extinguishing the MIL for engine

misfire and fuel system malfunctions. Currently, the federal OBD

regulations require that, upon MIL illumination and diagnostic trouble

code storage associated with engine misfire or fuel system

malfunctions, the manufacturer is allowed to extinguish the MIL

provided the same malfunction is not again detected during three

subsequent sequential trips during which engine speed is within 375

rpm, engine load is within 10 percent, and the engine's warm-up status

is the same as that under which the malfunction was first detected, and

no new malfunctions have been detected. Today's proposed revision is to

widen the engine load parameter from the current 10 percent value to 20

percent.

C. Extension of Allowance of California OBD II

EPA is proposing to extend the existing provision allowing optional

compliance with the California OBD II requirements, excluding the

California OBD II anti-tampering provisions, as satisfying federal OBD.

This allowance will continue indefinitely, rather than being eliminated

after the 1998 model year as currently specified. EPA is also proposing

to update the version of California OBD II allowed for optional federal

OBD compliance. Rather than the currently allowed CARB Mail-Out #95-34,

the allowed version will be CARB's recently updated version contained

in Mail-Out #96-34. This version of the California OBD II regulations

contains proposed amendments to the OBD II regulations and is intended

primarily for public comment purposes. After the final version of the

revised OBD II regulations is completed, EPA will, in its final action

on this proposal, allow compliance with that revised version provided

relevant portions of that version are acceptable for federal OBD

compliance demonstration. Manufacturers choosing the California OBD II

demonstration option need not comply with portions of that regulation

pertaining to vehicles certified under the Low Emission Vehicle Program

as those standards are not federal emission standards. Additionally,

manufacturers choosing the California OBD II demonstration option need

not comply with section (b)(4.2.2) which pertains to all vehicles

regardless of emission standards. That section requires evaporative

system leak detection monitoring down to a 0.02 inch diameter orifice

and represents a level of stringency beyond that ever appropriately

considered for federal OBD compliance. Lastly, manufacturers choosing

the California OBD II demonstration option need not comply with section

(d) which contains the anti-tampering provisions of the California OBD

II regulations.

D. Extension of Allowance of OBD Deficiencies for Federal OBD Vehicles

Today's action proposes to extend the current flexibility

provisions (i.e., ``deficiency provisions'') contained in Sec. 86.094-

17(i) indefinitely, rather than being eliminated beyond the 1998 model

year. This will allow the Administrator to accept an OBD system as

compliant even though specific requirements are not fully met. This

provision neither constitutes a waiver from federal OBD requirements,

nor does it allow compliance without meeting the minimum requirements

of the CAA (i.e., oxygen sensor monitor, catalyst monitor, and

standardization features).

E. Provisions for Alternate Fueled Vehicles

EPA is proposing to extend the current flexibility provision for

alternate fuel vehicles through the 2004 model year. Such vehicles will

be expected to comply fully with the OBD requirements proposed today

during gasoline operation (if applicable), and during alternate fuel

operation except where it is technologically infeasible to do so. Any

manufacturer wishing to utilize this flexibility provision must

demonstrate technological infeasibility concerns to EPA well in advance

of certification application.

F. Applicability

Today's proposed revisions to federal OBD malfunction thresholds,

monitoring requirements, deficiency provisions, alternate fuel

provisions, and the recommended practices incorporated by reference

apply to all 1999 and later model year light-duty vehicles and light-

duty trucks for which emission standards are in place or are

subsequently developed and promulgated by EPA. Today's proposed actions

to extend the allowance of optional compliance with California OBD II

and to update the acceptable version of the California OBD II

regulation apply to 1998 and later model year vehicles.

G. Update of Materials Incorporated by Reference

Also being proposed is the adoption of ISO 9141-2 entitled ``Road

vehicles--Diagnostic systems--Part 2: CARB requirements for interchange

of digital information,'' as an acceptable protocol for standardized

on-board to off-board communications. This standardized procedure was

proposed in September 24, 1991 (56 FR 48272), but could not be adopted

in the February 1993 final rule because the ISO document was not yet

finalized. ISO 9141-2 has since been finalized and is incorporated by

reference in today's proposed regulatory language.

Today's action also proposes the incorporation by reference of ISO

14230-4, ``Road vehicles--Diagnostic systems--KWP 2000 requirements for

Emission-related systems,'' as an acceptable protocol for standardized

on-board to off-board communications. This standardized procedure

contains a more up-to-date communication protocol than that contained

in ISO 9141-2. Today's action also proposes to incorporate updated

versions of the SAE procedures referenced in the current OBD

regulation. These SAE documents are J1850, J1979, J2012, J1962, J1877

and J1892.

H. Certification Provisions

The certification provisions associated with OBD, contained in

proposed section 86.099-30, will be appropriately revised to reflect

the proposed changes to the OBD malfunction thresholds and monitoring

requirements.

IV. Discussion of Issues

A. Federal OBD Malfunction Thresholds

The OBD malfunction thresholds promulgated by EPA in 1993 are based

on emission increases above a baseline level for any particular

vehicle. In other words, any malfunction or component deterioration

should be detected prior to emissions increasing above the non-

malfunctioning and/or non-deteriorated

[[Page 28935]]

emission level by an amount equal to the given threshold. For example,

all OBD systems currently must be able to detect oxygen sensor

deterioration before it results in an exhaust emissions increase of

greater than 0.2 g/mi HC, 1.7 g/m CO, or 0.5 g/mi NOX. The

emission increase would be measured relative to the baseline level for

the vehicle. EPA interprets the baseline level to be the vehicle's

emissions under normal, properly operating conditions.

EPA is proposing to substitute this approach with an approach

consistent with that in the California OBD II regulations.

Manufacturers have argued on several occasions that EPA should continue

to allow optional compliance with California OBD II for the purpose of

demonstrating compliance with the federal OBD program. Their primary

purpose in making this argument is to avoid the need to recalibrate

their OBD systems to the unique federal OBD thresholds. EPA agrees with

that argument and can see no cost effective value in requiring

calibration to two similar but distinct sets of OBD thresholds. In

addition, EPA believes revision of its OBD thresholds is appropriate

because EPA's current thresholds, based on increases over baseline

emission levels, could result in requirements for MIL illumination even

at emission levels below the applicable standards.

Today's proposal will revise the federal OBD malfunction thresholds

such that, in general, they are based not on baseline emissions, but

rather the emission standards themselves. The proposed regulations will

require identification of misfires and malfunction of oxygen sensors

and all other powertrain systems or components directly intended to

control emissions (e.g., evaporative purge control, EGR, secondary air

system, fuel control system) when emissions exceed the specified

emission threshold, which will be set at 1.5 times the applicable

emission standard. For evaporative leak detection, as discussed in more

detail in section C, ``Expanded Federal OBD Monitoring Requirements,''

today's proposal eliminates the current 30 g/test emission threshold

and instead requires detection of any hole equivalent to or greater in

size to one with a 0.04 inch diameter. For catalyst deterioration, the

proposed threshold is an increase of 1.5 times the applicable standard

compared to emissions from a representative catalyst run for 4000

miles. This threshold is consistent with California's threshold for

detection of catalyst malfunction or deterioration. As discussed

further in section C, this proposal also would require monitoring of

emission-related powertrain components that provide information to and

receive commands from the on-board computer whose malfunction may

impact emissions or may impair the ability of the OBD system to perform

its job (e.g., throttle position sensor, coolant temperature sensor,

vehicle speed sensor, etc.). Monitoring of these components must

include, at a minimum, electrical circuit continuity checks, and

effective rationality and/or functionality checks. Deterioration or

malfunction of these components would be identified when a component

failed the circuit continuity check or the rationality and/or

functionality checks.

While EPA believes that the proposed changes to the malfunction

thresholds will not be controversial to OEMs in general, issues still

exist. The Agency is concerned that this proposal may penalize those

OEMs who have proactively set out to meet the federal OBD thresholds

ahead of the existing 1999 model year cutoff of optional California OBD

II compliance. It may also penalize those small volume manufacturers

who may not have any plans for California vehicle sales and have thus

concentrated development efforts solely on the existing federal OBD

thresholds. EPA requests comment on the significance of this issue, and

requests suggestions on how best to resolve the issue while also

satisfying the Agency's desire to harmonize the federal and California

OBD requirements.

Another issue for discussion is that of threshold stringency. In

most cases, the California OBD II thresholds are more stringent than

the current federal thresholds. However, in some cases, the current

federal OBD malfunction thresholds are actually more stringent than the

California OBD II thresholds, particularly for Tier I light-duty

trucks. In particular, the current federal OBD thresholds can in some

cases require OBD detection and MIL illumination for malfunctions in

systems and components specifically used for emission control (e.g.,

EGR, evaporative purge, secondary air) even though vehicle emissions

may be below the emission standards. This, by definition, is lower than

requiring MIL illumination at 1.5 times the standard. Given that

vehicles are required to meet emission standards, it can be argued that

manufacturers should not be required to illuminate the MIL when

emissions are below those standards. EPA is sympathetic to the consumer

and the potential for seeking repair of systems or components used

specifically for emission control when no direct emission standards are

being violated. It should be noted that the revised malfunction

thresholds will effectively be no different, and in some cases will be

more stringent, for the major emission control component monitors

(i.e., catalyst, oxygen sensor, and engine misfire).

EPA is interested in any comments surrounding this issue and the

significance of its concern. Since the majority of the OEM industry has

repeatedly requested that EPA continue allowing optional compliance

with California OBD II as satisfying federal OBD, and this proposed

change results in federal OBD thresholds consistent with those

contained in the California OBD II requirements, EPA believes that the

proposed change to federal OBD malfunction thresholds should be

satisfactory and noncontroversial to those OEMs. In addition, EPA

believes that these revisions are consistent with the requirements of

CAA Section 202(m) and are technologically feasible.

B. Similar Operating Conditions Window

Another provision proposed today is to widen the engine load range

defining the similar operating conditions window. The proposal is to

widen that range from the current 10 percent value to 20 percent. This

window is used to determine when operating conditions for fuel system

and misfire malfunctions are again within the same operating window to

determine whether or not a previously detected malfunction is still

present. This window is used because malfunctions in the fuel control

system and those associated with engine misfire tend to happen at

specific operating conditions, rather than occurring during all modes

of operation. As a result, when a fuel system or misfire malfunction is

detected, the operating conditions window is stored in memory. During a

subsequent trip where operating conditions again enter that similar

conditions window, the presence of a malfunction will result in MIL

illumination. If, after three trips where similar operating conditions

are again encountered without the malfunction recurring, the MIL can be

extinguished provided no other MIL illuminating malfunction has been

detected.

This similar operating conditions window is being widened due to

difficulties in entering the current 10 percent window during

subsequent trips. This can result in an inability to extinguish a MIL

for a malfunction that is no longer occurring. For example, if a

cylinder misfires on a four cylinder car due to water in the gasoline,

then it will likely be very difficult to extinguish

[[Page 28936]]

the MIL after refilling with better gasoline because the engine load

characteristics at any given RPM will be very different while again

running consistently on all four cylinders.

The result of this proposed change is an increased latitude in

entering the wider similar conditions window on subsequent trips

resulting in a greater likelihood of extinguishing the MIL for

malfunctions that are no longer occurring. This proposed change will

not make it easier for the manufacturer to extinguish the MIL for

malfunctions that are still occurring, nor will it make it less likely

that the malfunction will be appropriately identified and flagged. For

these reasons, EPA knows of no issues surrounding this proposed change,

but is open to any comments.

C. Expanded Federal OBD Monitoring Requirements

The federal OBD requirements contained in 40 CFR 86.094-17 require

that the OBD system monitor proper functionality of the catalyst and

oxygen sensor, and monitor and detect engine misfire (including

identification of the particular misfiring cylinder(s)) and detect

electrical disconnection of the evaporative purge control and any

emission-related powertrain component or system which directly or

indirectly sends information to or receives information from the

vehicle's computer. Implied in those requirements is that any

functional deterioration or malfunction of an emission-related

powertrain component other than the catalyst, the oxygen sensor, or an

engine misfire related component not causing exceedance of the

malfunction thresholds does not require detection. The philosophy of

the original federal OBD program was that those emission-related

powertrain components unlikely to malfunction or unlikely to

malfunction in a way so as to increase emissions above the malfunction

thresholds need not be monitored for anything more than electrical

circuit continuity (i.e., functionality and rationality checks need not

be done).2

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ A rationality check is a diagnostic strategy whereby the on-

board computer analyzes the electronic signal sent by a sensor and

compares that to a known range of appropriate values. For example, a

coolant temperature sensor reading 70 degrees F after 10 minutes of

vehicle operation is not providing rational information to the on-

board computer because coolant temperature should be much higher

after 10 minutes of operation. Therefore, the system should be

identified as malfunctioning. A functionality check is a diagnostic

strategy whereby the on-board computer analyzes the functional

response of a component after first sending a functional command to

that component. If the desired functional response does not occur,

the component should be identified as malfunctioning.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, the malfunction detection threshold placed on evaporative

leak detection is currently 30 g/test. Because of advancements made to

evaporative emission control systems, this threshold is proving to be

insufficiently stringent, and provides little incentive to place an

evaporative system leak detection monitor on the vehicle or prevent

leaks from occurring because even relatively large leaks can sometimes

emit fewer vapors than 30 grams during a diurnal test.3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ While below 30 grams, the vapors emitted should by no means

be considered insignificant. See EPA's rulemaking decision on the

enhanced evaporative emission control system for more information on

the significance of evaporative emissions on urban air quality (58

FR 16002, March 24, 1993).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With today's proposal, the federal OBD program adopts the

philosophy originally built into the California OBD II program, in that

all emission-related powertrain components must be monitored. The

proposed regulation would require that all powertrain components

specifically intended to control emissions (e.g., evaporative purge

control, EGR, secondary air system, fuel control system) be monitored.

This proposal also would require monitoring of all other emission-

related powertrain components that provide information to and receive

commands from the on-board computer whose malfunction may impact

emissions or may impair the ability of the OBD system to perform its

job (e.g., throttle position sensor, coolant temperature sensor,

vehicle speed sensor, etc.). Monitoring of these components must

include, at a minimum, electrical circuit continuity checks, and

effective rationality and/or functionality checks.

The primary OBD monitoring system impacted by this proposed change

is the evaporative system leak detection monitor. The proposed

regulations require an evaporative leak detection monitor while,

originally, the Agency intended the federal OBD requirement to allow

for certification without the evaporative leak detection monitor

provided both the manufacturer and EPA were confident that the design

of the evaporative emission control system was robust enough so as not

to fail during in-use operation. However, only one major manufacturer

has taken advantage of this allowance, and even that manufacturer has

used this allowance on only a portion of their production fleet. All

other major manufacturers have apparently decided that they do not have

sufficient confidence in their evaporative emission control system to

warrant removing the monitor, or they have decided that it is more cost

effective to implement the monitor on federally certified vehicles

rather than to recalibrate those vehicles for sale without it.

Additionally, many state I/M representatives have expressed concerns

with the current federal OBD allowance for certification without an

evaporative leak detection monitor. These representatives are eager for

widespread OBD implementation such that their I/M programs can rely on

OBD checks as replacement for emission tailpipe and/or evaporative

tests. They are concerned about their ability to rely solely on the OBD

system for I/M purposes given the future potential that more

manufacturers will sell vehicles without the OBD evaporative leak

detection monitor. Should more manufacturers make use of that current

federal OBD allowance, and without some form of I/M evaporative system

test, they will be left without any kind of evaporative system

evaluation.

The Agency has altered its OBD philosophy, in part, as an effort to

enhance the role of OBD in future I/M programs. Like the state

representatives referred to above, the Agency also hopes that current

emission test based I/M programs can be replaced with a much less time

consuming and more cost efficient check of the OBD system. However,

without monitors on all emission-related components, particularly the

evaporative system leak detection monitor, the OBD-only based I/M

program is not as likely to occur due to its potential for more limited

evaluation of the vehicle.

Further, the Agency believes that mandating these monitors will not

adversely affect the federal OBD program nor will it pose undue burden

on the OEMs. In fact, under the federal OBD rulemaking in February

1993, though EPA did not mandate all the monitors mentioned, the

manufacturer was still held responsible for any adverse affects that

those systems, if malfunctioning, could potentially cause.

Additionally, the Agency fully believes that the feasibility of

expanded monitoring requirements is well established as argued in the

recent California OBD II waiver decision (61 FR 53371, October 11,

1996). Further, many OEMs have already certified to federal OBD by

demonstrating compliance with California OBD II requirements. Lastly,

many OEMs have indicated their willingness to participate in the

National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program, which includes California

OBD II

[[Page 28937]]

monitoring requirements. This suggests that expanded monitoring

requirements as proposed today are fully acceptable to at least the

majority of the OEM industry. For these reasons, today's proposed

change is not expected to result in any increased costs associated with

the federal OBD program over original estimates.4

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The original cost estimate outlined in 58 FR 9468, February

19, 1993, included the costs associated with evaporative leak

detection monitoring.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Agency does have some concerns regarding this issue, similar to

the concerns expressed in Section IV(A). The expansion of mandatory

monitors may penalize those OEMs who have proactively set out to design

a federal OBD system ahead of the 1999 model year cutoff of optional

California OBD II compliance. It may also penalize those small volume

manufacturers who may not have any plans for California vehicle sales

and have thus concentrated development efforts solely on a federal OBD

system. However, the Agency also has concerns over the effectiveness of

an OBD based I/M program without having OBD monitoring of essentially

the entire emission control system.

The Agency requests comment on today's proposed expansion of

mandatory monitors under the federal OBD program. Of particular

interest are comments from those manufacturers that have concentrated

on designing a unique federal OBD system due to the more limited

mandatory monitoring requirements. The Agency will consider the

possibility of providing a two year phase-in period in the form of a

carry-over allowance for compliance with the proposed federal OBD

revisions; any phase-in period will apply only to those vehicles

certified to the unique federal OBD requirements in the 1998 model

year. Also of interest are comments from state Inspection and

Maintenance program officials regarding their concern over the

potential that, without the revisions proposed, federal OBD systems

will not have all of the monitors currently required in the California

OBD II program.

D. Extension of Allowance of California OBD II

Today's action proposes to extend indefinitely the allowance for

manufacturers to comply with federal OBD requirements by optionally

complying with California OBD II. The allowance for optional compliance

with California OBD II has already been established in the federal OBD

program and was incorporated into the federal OBD final rulemaking in

February 1993 [58 FR 9468, February 19, 1993]. However, in that final

rulemaking, and in an August 1996 final rule [61 FR 45898, August 30,

1996], the Agency provided that allowance only through the 1998 model

year.

Additionally, today's proposed action seeks to update the version

of the California OBD II regulation that is applicable for federal OBD

compliance beginning with the 1998 model year. This action is similar

to an action taken in the August 1996 final rule that updated the

applicable version of the California OBD II regulation. However, since

that time, CARB has again made several revisions to the California OBD

II regulations, some of which apply to federal Tier I type vehicles.

These revisions provide some relief from earlier versions of OBD II,

but they are relatively minor and do not affect the overall soundness

of the OBD II program.

Both of these changes, updating the applicable version of the OBD

II regulations and extending indefinitely the allowance of California

OBD II for federal OBD compliance, are being proposed for the sake of

harmonization of OBD related requirements between California and EPA.

Most of the original equipment industry has repeatedly requested that

EPA continue to accept the California OBD II regulations so as to avoid

the need for major vehicle recalibrations as part of complying with the

similar but distinct federal OBD requirements. Further, all 1998 and

beyond model year California OBD II vehicles will be designed and

certified according to the recently revised OBD II regulation, rather

than the 1995 version. As a result, EPA must update the applicable

version of the OBD II regulation to which compliance can be shown for

federal OBD purposes.

As a result of this proposed action, any federal vehicles complying

with federal OBD by optionally complying with California OBD II are

allowed the same deficiencies as allowed under the California OBD II

provisions. Note, however, that a manufacturer requesting certification

of a deficient California OBD II system must receive EPA acceptance of

any deficiency independently of an acceptance made by CARB. The Agency

will use the same criteria specified by CARB in their OBD II

regulation. (Those criteria being the extent to which the requirements

are satisfied overall on the vehicle applications in question, the

extent to which the resultant diagnostic system design will be more

effective than earlier OBD systems, and a demonstrated good-faith

effort to meet the requirements in full by evaluating and considering

the best available monitoring technology.) Except that EPA will not

provide deficiency allowances for lack of catalyst monitors or oxygen

sensor monitors because the Clean Air Act specifically requires these

monitors no later than the 1996 model year. Moreover, EPA will grant

such deficiencies based upon the same premise expressed in section

IV(E) with regard to granting deficiencies for federal OBD vehicles.

The Agency will make every effort to determine the acceptability of

California OBD II deficiency requests in concert with CARB staff to

avoid the potential for conflicting determinations. However, the extent

to which the agencies can make concurrent and coordinated findings will

rely heavily on the manufacturer, who will be expected to provide any

necessary information to both agencies in parallel rather than pursuing

deficiency determinations on a separate basis.

E. Extension of Allowance of OBD Deficiencies for Federal OBD Vehicles

Despite the best efforts of manufacturers, many have needed to

certify vehicles with some sort of deficiency when unanticipated

problems have arisen that could not be remedied in time to meet

production schedules. Given the relative newness and, most importantly,

the considerable complexity of designing, producing, and installing the

components and systems that make up the OBD system, manufacturers have

expressed and demonstrated difficulty in complying with every aspect of

the OBD requirements. Furthermore, this difficulty appears likely to

continue indefinitely. The Agency believes that 100 percent compliance

can be achieved, but EPA believes that some sort of relief must be

provided to allow for certification of vehicles that, despite the best

efforts of the manufacturers, have deficient OBD systems.

The EPA ``deficiency'' allowance should not be seen as a waiver of

any kind. Though EPA will accept minor deficiencies, EPA will not

accept any deficiency requests that include the complete lack of a

required diagnostic monitor, with the possible exception of the special

provisions being proposed today for alternate fueled vehicles. In fact,

EPA expects to implement this deficiency allowance primarily for

software or calibration type problems, as opposed to cases where

hardware is at fault. This is EPA's expectation due to a belief that,

despite unintended and unforseen software problems occurring on these

complicated computer controlled systems, manufacturers

[[Page 28938]]

should have functioning OBD hardware in place, especially now that OBD

regulations have been in existence for several years. Furthermore, EPA

does not intend to certify vehicles with federal OBD systems that have

more than one OBD system deficiency, and EPA will not allow carryover

of any deficiency to the following model year unless it can be

demonstrated that correction of the deficiency requires hardware

modifications that absolutely cannot be accomplished in the time

available, as determined by the Administrator. These limitations are

intended to prevent a manufacturer from using the deficiency allowance

as a means to avoid compliance or delay implementation of any OBD

monitors or to compromise the overall effectiveness of the OBD program.

The Agency proposes that the ``deficiency'' allowance be provided

indefinitely, and requests comment on concerns surrounding this

proposal.

F. Diagnostic Readiness Codes

Because of the considerable confusion regarding the setting and

clearing of diagnostic readiness codes, or I/M readiness codes, this

section serves to provide EPA's interpretation of its regulations on

these codes. The original OBD final rulemaking of February 1993,

required that, absent the presence of any fault codes, separate status

codes shall be used to identify correctly functioning emission control

systems and those systems which need further vehicle operation to be

fully evaluated. The purpose behind the readiness code is to allow an

inspection and maintenance (I/M) official to determine whether or not a

vehicle has undergone sufficient operation to allow the OBD system to

fully evaluate the emission control system. This way, the I/M official

could be certain that the lack of OBD diagnostic trouble codes could be

interpreted to mean that the vehicle was operating cleanly, rather than

perhaps being an indication that the OBD system simply had not had time

to fully evaluate the vehicle.

Many manufacturers have had difficulty interpreting exactly what

was expected via this requirement. Some manufacturers have interpreted

the requirement to mean that with every ``key-on,'' the readiness codes

should be set to ``not ready'' status. However, such an approach

effectively defeats the purpose behind the readiness code since any

vehicle having been turned off while waiting for the I/M inspection

would subsequently be interpreted as ``not ready'' for I/M inspection.

Therefore, to clarify, the readiness code, for those monitors

having associated readiness codes, should be set to ``ready'' status

only after sufficient vehicle operation such that the monitor has been

properly exercised and a valid determination can be made as to the

component's or system's operational status. Generally, this equates to

two driving cycles, where driving cycle is defined as vehicle operation

during which a particular monitor is exercised. Note that a driving

cycle may be different for different monitors, and not all monitors

have associated readiness codes. For example, continuously operating

monitors are considered ``ready'' since they operate continuously

rather than during only limited operating conditions; therefore, such

monitors may not have an associated readiness code.

The readiness codes should never be set to ``not ready'' status by

any means other than intentional resetting via a scan tool or perhaps

due to battery power interruption. Further, when setting a readiness

code to ``not ready'' status using a scan tool (after conducting any

necessary repairs), all readiness codes should be set to ``not ready''

rather than resetting only the readiness code associated with the

repaired component. In other words, readiness codes should be set to

``not ready'' status as a group rather than individually. This will

serve to ensure adequate vehicle operation and OBD system evaluation

following vehicle repairs and prior to subsequent I/M inspections.

G. EPA Recall Policy

Because the Agency has received numerous questions regarding its

recall policy relative to OBD, this section serves to clarify the

issue. Under the federal OBD program, a decision to recall the OBD

system for recalibration or repair, or a replacement of a

malfunctioning component, will depend on factors including, but not

limited to, the level of emissions above applicable standards, whether

the defect is uniform over the entire engine family or limited to a

sub-class of the engine family, or the presence of any identifiable

faulty or deteriorated components which affect emissions with no MIL

illumination.

In the case of an OBD system failing to identify an infrequent

component failure, the OBD system, not the component, would be the

subject of the recall and that recall would occur only if the

determination were made that the ``failure to identify'' would occur on

a substantial number of vehicles of the same general OBD design and/or

monitoring strategy. Therefore, in the Agency's opinion, if evidence

supports that an identical malfunction could occur with sufficient

probability without being flagged by a similar OBD system design and/or

monitoring strategy, that OBD system design is inadequate and has

failed or would fail to detect that malfunction. Such a determination

would provide little confidence in that OBD monitor or strategy to

properly monitor during in-use operation, and, therefore, it should be

recalled.

H. Extension of Provisions for Alternate Fueled Vehicles

In a direct final rulemaking published March 23, 1995 (60 FR

15242), EPA made an allowance for alternate fueled vehicles to comply

with federal OBD requirements to the extent feasible through the 1998

model year, without being required to include monitoring strategies for

which the effects of alternate fuels are of technological concern.

Beginning with the 1999 model year, full compliance with all federal

OBD requirements would be expected. This one to two year delay in full

OBD implementation was provided because industry argued they had not

had sufficient lead time to properly assess the effects of alternate

fuels on OBD monitoring strategies. As a result, there was considerable

concern within industry and EPA regarding whether monitoring strategies

for alternate fueled vehicles could be developed within the available

time. Thus, the OBD requirements were presenting a roadblock to

development of alternate fueled vehicles. The delay allowed

manufacturers more lead time to design and develop OBD strategies

suited for alternate fuels, and thus allowed greater production of

alternate fueled vehicles.

All of these arguments for additional lead time still exist at this

time. Many technological aspects of alternate fueled vehicles that

provide environmental benefits also cause problems in terms of OBD

monitoring strategies. The uncertainty involved with alternate fueled

vehicles is a result of their unknown effects on emission components,

and the variability of deterioration characteristics of monitors and

sensors with which the fuels come into contact. The technology-forcing

nature of OBD regulations has required industry to concentrate almost

exclusively on developing new OBD strategies for gasoline vehicles and

making improvements to existing strategies. Additional lead time,

beyond that mentioned above, would provide the opportunity for more

data collection from in-use alternate fueled vehicles to evaluate the

unique effects of these fuels on emission control system components

[[Page 28939]]

and the corresponding OBD system monitors.

EPA recently contracted SouthWest Research Institute to study the

technological feasibility and lead time issues associated with OBD

systems and alternate fueled vehicles. The study (On-Board

Diagnostics--Second Generation (OBD-II) System Criteria for Alternate-

Fueled Vehicles, Final Report, Melvin N. Ingalls, Sep. 1996) (EPA Air

Docket A-96-32, I-A-01) supports EPA's independent analyses that the

manufacturers of alternate fueled vehicles still face considerable

challenges in incorporating fully functional OBD systems into the

design of these vehicles. The report concluded, as stated in the

Executive Summary, ``Aftermarket conversions (the majority of gaseous

fuel vehicles are conversions) have a particularly great need for

further OBD system development. The CNG and LPG industry press

(magazines, newsletters, and the like) identify OBD-II as the biggest

problem facing vehicle conversion companies.''

Therefore, EPA is proposing to extend the existing provision for

alternate fueled vehicles to allow additional lead time for full

compliance with federal OBD through the 2004 model year with full

compliance required in the 2005 model year. The additional OBD

development time will allow manufacturers (both OEM and converters) to

evaluate the effects of alternate fuels on emission control system

performance and thus ensure that OBD diagnostic strategies will be

reliable in-use. EPA believes that EPA certified alternate fueled

vehicles can provide environmental benefits relative to gasoline

vehicles, and EPA is committed to seeing larger volumes of EPA

certified alternate fueled vehicles produced and sold. Note that this

flexibility is intended to apply only during operation on an alternate

fuel and even then the flexibility applies only to the extent

manufacturers can show that diagnostic strategies for alternate fuel

operation are technologically infeasible. Manufacturers will be

required to implement monitoring strategies to the extent feasible, but

will not be required to include monitoring strategies the reliability

of which are still doubtful for alternate fuel operation. To further

clarify, EPA will expect that vehicles designed for use on more than

one fuel (i.e., flexible fuel vehicles) have fully operating OBD

systems upon initial sale. Should a non-gasoline fuel then be

introduced, the monitors affected by the alternate fuel could be

deactivated to the extent the manufacturer can show that reliable

diagnostic strategies are infeasible. Therefore, if the vehicle is not

fueled by an alternate fuel, the OBD system will be fully functioning.

Authority for this proposal exists under section 202(m)(1)(A). That

section clearly states that OBD systems be required that can accurately

identify emission-related system deterioration or malfunction. While

gasoline technologies have been developed that can accurately detect

such problems, EPA does not believe that sufficient evidence has been

demonstrated at this time showing that OBD systems will perform

accurately while operating on alternate fuels. To the extent such

evidence becomes available prior to model year 2005, or to the extent

technological infeasibility cannot be demonstrated, manufacturers will

be less able to use these flexibility provisions.

I. Update of Materials Incorporated by Reference

The Agency is not aware of any potential issues surrounding the

inclusion of either ISO 9141-2, or ISO 14230-4 into the federal OBD

regulations, or updating the SAE Recommended Practices already

incorporated by reference. ISO 9141-2 and ISO 14230-4 are similar in

nature to SAE J1850, which outlines standardized means of on-board to

off-board computer communications. The details of all the materials

proposed for Incorporation by Reference are contained in 40 CFR 86.1

and 86.099-17 (h). Nonetheless, the Agency is open to any comments

regarding the materials proposed today for incorporation by reference.

V. Cost Effectiveness

This proposed rulemaking alters an existing provision by revising

the current federal OBD malfunction thresholds. These revisions will

result in essentially equivalent stringency for the major emission

control system monitors, while slightly relaxing stringency in certain

cases for some more minor emission control system monitors. Because

most of industry has requested that EPA harmonize emission thresholds

with the California OBD II thresholds as a means to minimize resource

requirements, EPA believes that today's proposal will provide cost

savings to those OEMs certifying solely to the California OBD II

thresholds by eliminating the need to incur significant recalibration

costs and efforts for the 1999 model year.

However, EPA is aware that some OEMs, particularly extremely small

volume import manufacturers, may have concentrated their efforts on the

unique federal OBD malfunction thresholds. EPA believes that the

primary cost imposed on these particular OEMs associated with today's

proposal would be for the mandatory evaporative system leak detection

monitoring. These systems have been estimated by EPA to cost $18 per

vehicle (58 FR 9483). The Agency believes that mandating the

evaporative system leak detection monitor would not increase the cost

of the federal OBD program. The cost of this monitor was taken into

consideration in the original federal OBD regulations (58 FR 9468) even

though this monitor was originally optional. Additionally, these

extremely small volume import manufacturers will be required to

reevaluate their OBD calibrations since they are set for compliance

with the current federal OBD thresholds and would require potential

rework to comply with the thresholds proposed today. Because this

recalibration effort could be resource intensive, EPA requests comments

on the level of burden and potential means of resolving this concern

should it be warranted based on the burden imposed.

The automotive aftermarket industry is likely to argue that the

provisions of today's proposal will impose heavy economic burdens on

that industry. The automotive aftermarket has made claims of heavy

economic burdens during development of the California OBD II

regulations and the ensuing waiver process during which California

requested a waiver from federal preemption for the purpose of enforcing

their unique OBD program. In response to today's proposed revisions,

the aftermarket may argue that excessive costs will be incurred because

the anti-tampering measures required under the California OBD II

regulations will present more difficulty for the automotive aftermarket

in carrying out their business of reverse engineering original

equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts and designing replacement or

specialty parts. However, EPA is not including CARB's anti-tampering

provisions in its incorporation of California's regulations. Failure to

incorporate these provisions still allows OEMs to voluntarily implement

anti-tampering measures, but such is also the case under federal OBD.

Moreover, CARB has eliminated the anti-tampering provisions considered

most egregious by the aftermarket.5 Therefore, EPA believes

that the provisions of this proposed rulemaking are not

[[Page 28940]]

responsible for any potential increased costs on the automotive

aftermarket.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ CARB Mail-Out #96-34, proposed amendments to the California

Code of Regulations section 1968.1, paragraph (d).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The costs and emission reductions associated with the federal OBD

program were developed for the February 19, 1993, final rulemaking. The

changes being proposed today do not affect the costs or emission

reductions published as part of that rulemaking, with the possible

exception of decreasing costs for larger volume manufacturers.

VI. Public Participation

A. Summary of Specific Comments Requested by EPA

This section serves only to highlight the issues upon which EPA

specifically requests public comment. This section does not preclude in

any way the submittal of comments not requested here. Furthermore, this

section does not provide details on the proposed requirements, nor

potential issues surrounding those proposals; such detail can be found

in sections III and IV, above.

1. Federal OBD Malfunction Thresholds

As discussed in section IV.A., the Agency is proposing changes to

the current federal OBD malfunction thresholds. The Agency requests

comment regarding the impact of these proposed changes on those

manufacturers having proactively set out to meet the current federal

OBD thresholds ahead of the 1999 model year. The Agency also requests

comment regarding the impact of the proposed changes on small volume

manufacturer who may not have any plans for California vehicle sales

and have thus concentrated development efforts solely on the existing

federal OBD thresholds. Furthermore, realizing that EPA has requested

comment on the appropriateness of a two year grace period for those

manufacturers having certified to the current EPA thresholds in the

1998 model year, EPA requests comment on how best to resolve the issue

while also satisfying the Agency's desire to harmonize the federal and

California OBD requirements.

The Agency is also requesting comment on the stringency of the

proposed thresholds given that thresholds for some monitors will be

relaxed somewhat, while others will become more stringent.

2. Expanded Federal OBD Monitoring Requirements

The Agency requests comment on today's proposed expansion of

mandatory monitors under the federal OBD program. Of particular

interest are comments from those manufacturers that have concentrated

on designing a unique federal OBD system due to the more limited

mandatory monitoring requirements.

Also of interest are comments from state Inspection and Maintenance

program officials regarding their concern over the potential for OBD

systems on vehicles that do not have all of the monitors currently

required in the Californian OBD II program.

3. Extension of Allowance of OBD Deficiencies for Federal OBD Vehicles

As discussed in section IV.D., the Agency is proposing to

indefinitely extend the current ``deficiency'' provisions of the

federal OBD program. The Agency believes that this is a reasonable

proposal given the intricate nature of OBD systems and the likelihood

that minor software glitches will occur. Comment is requested on

concerns regarding this proposal.

4. Extension of Provisions for Alternate Fueled Vehicles

The Agency is proposing that special OBD flexibilities be afforded

to alternate fueled vehicle. Comments are specifically requested on the

need for such flexibility, and the need for that flexibility to extend

through the 2004 model year as opposed to a nearer term model year.

Comments are also requested regarding EPA's expectation that bi-fuel

alternate fuel vehicles (i.e., those vehicles with one fuel delivery

system capable of operation on two different fuels or any combination

of those fuels) and dual-fuel alternate fuel vehicles (i.e., those

vehicles with two separate fuel delivery systems) have fully compliant

OBD systems during gasoline operation.

5. Update of Materials Incorporated by Reference

As discussed in section IV.H., the Agency is proposing to

Incorporate by Reference a series of standardized SAE and ISO

procedures. The Agency is not aware of any issues surrounding the

proposed Incorporation by Reference, but is open to any comments

regarding this issue.

6. Cost Effectiveness

As discussed in section V, EPA is aware that some OEMs,

particularly extremely small volume import manufacturers, have

concentrated their efforts on the unique federal OBD malfunction

thresholds. Because the proposed changes may require recalibration

efforts, and those efforts could be resource intensive, EPA requests

comments on the level of burden and potential means of resolving this

concern should it be warranted based on the burden imposed.

B. Comments and the Public Docket

EPA welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposed rulemaking.

Commenters are especially encouraged to give suggestions for changing

any aspects of the proposal. All comments, with the exception of

proprietary information should be addressed to the EPA Air Docket

Section, Docket No. A-96-32 (see ADDRESSES).

Commenters who wish to submit proprietary information for

consideration should clearly separate such information from other

comments by (1) labeling proprietary information ``Confidential

Business Information'' and (2) sending proprietary information directly

to the contact person listed (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and

not to the public docket. This will help insure that proprietary

information is not inadvertently placed in the docket. If a commenter

wants EPA to use a submission labeled as confidential business

information as part of the basis for the final rule, then a

nonconfidential version of the document, which summarizes the key data

or information, should be sent to the docket.

Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed

by EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40

CFR Part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission

when it is received by EPA, the submission may be made available to the

public without notifying the commenters.

C. Public Hearing

Anyone wishing to present testimony about this proposal at the

public hearing (see DATES) should, if possible, notify the contact

person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least seven days prior

to the day of the hearing. The contact person should be given an

estimate of the time required for the presentation of testimony and

notification of any need for audio/visual equipment. Testimony will be

scheduled on a first come, first serve basis. A sign-up sheet will be

available at the registration table the morning of the hearing for

scheduling those who have not notified the contact earlier. This

testimony will be scheduled on a first come, first serve basis to

follow the previously scheduled testimony.

EPA requests that approximately 50 copies of the statement or

material to be presented be brought to the hearing for distribution to

the audience. In addition, EPA would find it helpful to receive an

advanced copy of any

[[Page 28941]]

statement or material to be presented at the hearing at least one week

before the scheduled hearing date. This is to give EPA staff adequate

time to review such material before the hearing. Such advanced copies

should be submitted to the contact person listed.

The official records of the hearing will be kept open for 30 days

following the hearing to allow submission of rebuttal and supplementary

testimony. All such submittals should be directed to the Air Docket

Section, Docket No. A-96-32 (see ADDRESSES). The hearing will be

conducted informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. A

written transcript of the hearing will be placed in the above docket

for review. Anyone desiring to purchase a copy of the transcript should

make individual arrangements with the court reporter recording the

proceedings.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the

Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''

and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the

Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as

one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or,

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant

regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is

therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

Today's action does not impose any new information collection

burden. The modifications proposed above do not change the information

collection requirements submitted to and approved by OMB in association

with the OBD final rulemaking (58 FR 9468, February 19, 1993; and, 59

FR 38372, July 28, 1994). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has

previously approved the information collection requirements contained

in 40 CFR 86.084-17 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-

0104 (EPA ICR No. 783.35).

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or

provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize

technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and

verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and

disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to

comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;

train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;

search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;

and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Copies of the ICR document(s) may be obtained from Sandy Farmer,

Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M St., SW. (mail code 2136);

Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740. Include the ICR and/

or OMB number in any correspondence.

C. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires federal agencies when

proposing a rule, to identify potentially adverse impacts of federal

regulations upon small entities. In instances where significant impacts

are possible on a substantial number of these entities, agencies are

required to develop a proposed Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in connection with this proposed rule. This rule

will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial

number of small businesses. This rulemaking will provide regulatory

relief to both large and small volume automobile manufacturers by

maintaining consistency with California OBD II requirements. It will

not have a substantial impact on such entities. This rulemaking will

not have a significant impact on businesses that manufacture, rebuild,

distribute, or sell automotive parts, nor those involved in automotive

service and repair, as the revisions affect only requirements on

automobile manufacturers.

In the absence of the proposed rule, the expiration of the

Sec. 86.094-17(j) provision allowing optional demonstration of

compliance with California OBD II requirements to suffice for EPA

certification purposes, would necessitate full vehicle manufacturer

compliance with the current federal OBD requirements at Sec. 86.094-

17(a) through (h), beginning with the 1999 model year. Manufacturers

have thus far chosen to reduce their costs by producing vehicle OBD

systems to California specifications, thereby avoiding the necessity of

developing significantly different OBD calibrations meeting the

existing federal specifications, for the non-California market. Because

the proposed rule modifies federal requirements to capture many

benefits of the California option, EPA believes that it reduces

manufacturer costs over a no-action baseline for 1999 and later model

years.

Further, figures provided by the U.S. Departments of Labor and

Commerce show the estimated cost of vehicle changes to meet 1996 model

year OBD II requirements to be less than 1% of total vehicle cost.

Because these changes already incorporate increased monitoring that is

required to meet California OBD II requirements and is also required by

the proposed rule, the rule is not expected to significantly increase

OBD system cost beyond the estimate given.

Therefore, the Administrator certifies that this regulation does

not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to

the private sector, or $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA

must select the most cost effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the action proposed today would not include

a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or

more to either State, Local, or tribal

[[Page 28942]]

governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information, Incorporation by reference,

Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: May 14, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 86 of title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 86--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM NEW AND IN-USE MOTOR

VEHICLES AND NEW AND IN-USE MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES: CERTIFICATION

AND TEST PROCEDURES

1. The authority citation for part 86 revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

2. Section 86.1 is amended by adding the following entries in

numerical order to the table in paragraph (b)(2) and by adding

paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:

Sec. 86.1 Reference materials.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR part 86

Document No. and name reference

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

SAE J 1850 July 1995, Class B Data Communication Network

Interface.............................................. 86.099-17

SAE J1877 October 1993, Recommended Practice for Bar-

Coded Vehicle Identification Number Label.............. 86.095-35

SAE J1892 July 1994, Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded

Vehicle Emission Configuration Label................... 86.095-35

SAE J1962 January 1995, Diagnostic Connector............ 86.099-17

SAE J1979 E/E July 1996, Diagnostic Test Modes.......... 86.099-17

SAE J2012 July 1996, Recommended Format and messages for

Diagnostic Trouble Code Definitions, Part C............ 86.099-17

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

(5) ISO material. The following table sets forth material from the

International Organization of Standardization that has been

incorporated by reference. The first column lists the number and name

of the material. The second column lists the section(s) of this part,

other than Sec. 86.1, in which the matter is referenced. The second

column is presented for information only and may not be all inclusive.

Copies of these materials may be obtained from the International

Organization for Standardization, Case Postale 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20,

Switzerland.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR part 86

Document No. and name reference

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISO 9141-2 February 1994, Road vehicles--Diagnostic

systems Part 2......................................... 86.099-17

ISO 14230-4 April 1996, Road vehicles--Diagnostic

systems................................................ 86.099-17

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart A--[Amended]

Sec. 86.094-21 [Amended]

3. Section 86.094-21 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph

(i).

4. Section 86.094-38 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through

(f) to read as follows:

Sec. 86.094-38 Maintenance instructions.

(a) through (f) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.087-38.

* * * * *

5. Section 86.095-35 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read

as follows:

Sec. 86.095-35 Labeling.

* * * * *

(i) All light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks shall comply with

SAE Recommended Practices J1877 ``Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded

Vehicle Identification Number Label,'' (October 1993), and J1892

``Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded Vehicle Emission Configuration

Label,'' (July 1994). SAE J1877 and J1892 are incorporated by reference

(see Sec. 86.1).

6. Section 86.098-17 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2)

through (j) to read as follows:

Sec. 86.098-17 Emission control diagnostic system for 1998 and later

light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.

* * * * *

(b)(2) through (i) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-17.

(j) Demonstration of compliance with California OBD II requirements

(Title 13 California Code Sec. 1968.1), as modified pursuant to

California Mail Out #96-34 (October 25, 1996), shall satisfy the

requirements of this section, except that compliance with Title 13

California Code Secs. 1968.1(b) (4.2.2), pertaining to evaporative leak

detection, and 1968.1(d), pertaining to tampering protection, are not

required to satisfy the requirements of this section.

7. A new Sec. 86.099-17 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 86.099-17 Emission control diagnostic system for 1999 and later

light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.

(a) All light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks shall be equipped

with an on-board diagnostic (OBD) system capable of monitoring, for

each vehicle's useful life, all emission related powertrain systems or

components. All systems and components required to be monitored by this

section shall be evaluated periodically, but no less frequently than

once per Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule as defined in paragraph (a)

of Appendix I of this part, or similar trip as approved by the

Administrator.

(b) Malfunction descriptions. The OBD system shall detect and

identify malfunctions in all monitored emission-related powertrain

systems or components according to the following malfunction

definitions as measured and calculated in accordance with test

procedures set forth in subpart B of this part. Paragraphs (b)(2) and

(b)(3) of this section do not apply to diesel cycle light-duty vehicles

or light-duty trucks.

(1) Catalyst deterioration or malfunction before it results in an

increase in HC emissions 1.5 times the HC standard, as compared to the

HC emission level measured using a representative 4000 mile catalyst

system.

(2) Engine misfire resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5

times the applicable standard for HC, CO or NOX; and any

misfire capable of damaging the catalytic converter.

(3) Oxygen sensor deterioration or malfunction resulting in exhaust

emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable standard for HC, CO or

NOX.

(4) Any vapor leak in the evaporative and/or refueling system

(excluding the tubing and connections between the purge valve and the

intake manifold) greater than or equal in magnitude to a leak caused by

a 0.040 inch diameter orifice; and the absence of evaporative purge air

flow from the complete evaporative emission control system.

(5) Any deterioration or malfunction occurring in a powertrain

system or component directly intended to control emissions, including

but not necessarily limited to, the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)

system, if equipped, the secondary air system, if equipped, and the

fuel control system, singularly resulting in exhaust emissions

exceeding 1.5 times the applicable emission standard for HC, CO or

NOX.

(6) Any other deterioration or malfunction occurring in an

electronic

[[Page 28943]]

emission-related powertrain system or component not otherwise described

above that either provides input to or receives commands from the on-

board computer and has a measurable impact on emissions; monitoring of

components required by this paragraph shall be satisfied by employing

electrical circuit continuity checks and, for computer input

components, rationality checks (input values within manufacturer

specified ranges) and, for output components, functionality checks

(proper functional response to computer commands); malfunctions are

defined as a failure of the system or component to meet the electrical

circuit continuity checks or the rationality or functionality checks.

(7) Oxygen sensor or any other component deterioration or

malfunction which renders that sensor or component incapable of

performing its function as part of the OBD system shall be detected and

identified on vehicles so equipped.

(c) Malfunction indicator light. The OBD system shall incorporate a

malfunction indicator light (MIL) readily visible to the vehicle

operator. When illuminated, it shall display ``Check Engine,''

``Service Engine Soon,'' or a similar phrase or symbol approved by the

Administrator. A vehicle shall not be equipped with more than one

general purpose malfunction indicator light for emission-related

problems; separate specific purpose warning lights (e.g. brake system,

fasten seat belt, oil pressure, etc.) are permitted. The use of red for

the OBD-related malfunction indicator light is prohibited.

(d) MIL illumination. The MIL shall illuminate and remain

illuminated when any of the conditions specified in paragraph (b) of

this section are detected and verified, or whenever the engine control

enters a default or secondary mode of operation considered abnormal for

the given engine operating conditions. The MIL shall blink once per

second under any period of operation during which engine misfire is

occurring and catalyst damage is imminent. After no more than two such

misfire detections, the MIL shall maintain a steady illumination when

the misfire is not occurring and shall remain illuminated until the MIL

extinguishing criteria of this section are satisfied. The MIL shall

also illuminate when the vehicle's ignition is in the ``key-on''

position before engine starting or cranking and extinguish after engine

starting if no malfunction has previously been detected. If a fuel

system or engine misfire malfunction has previously been detected, the

MIL may be extinguished if the malfunction does not reoccur during

three subsequent sequential trips during which engine speed is within

375 rpm, engine load is within 20 percent, and the engine's warm-up

status is the same as that under which the malfunction was first

detected, and no new malfunctions have been detected. If any

malfunction other than a fuel system or engine misfire malfunction has

been detected, the MIL may be extinguished if the malfunction does not

reoccur during three subsequent sequential trips during which the

monitoring system responsible for illuminating the MIL functions

without detecting the malfunction, and no new malfunctions have been

detected. Upon Administrator approval, statistical MIL illumination

protocols may be employed, provided they result in comparable

timeliness in detecting a malfunction and evaluating system

performance, i.e., three to six monitoring events would be considered

acceptable.

(e) Storing of computer codes. The emission control diagnostic

system shall record and store in computer memory diagnostic trouble

codes and diagnostic readiness codes indicating the status of the

emission control system. These codes shall be available through the

standardized data link connector per SAE J1979 specifications as

referenced in paragraph (h) of this section.

(1) A diagnostic trouble code shall be stored for any detected and

verified malfunction causing MIL illumination. The stored diagnostic

trouble code shall identify the malfunctioning system or component as

uniquely as possible. At the manufacturer's discretion, a diagnostic

trouble code may be stored for conditions not causing MIL illumination.

Regardless, a separate code should be stored indicating the expected

MIL illumination status (i.e., MIL commanded ``ON,'' MIL commanded

``OFF'').

(2) For a single misfiring cylinder, the diagnostic trouble code(s)

shall uniquely identify the cylinder, unless the manufacturer submits

data and/or engineering evaluations which adequately demonstrate that

the misfiring cylinder cannot be reliably identified under certain

operating conditions. The diagnostic trouble code shall identify

multiple misfiring cylinder conditions; under multiple misfire

conditions, the misfiring cylinders need not be uniquely identified if

a distinct multiple misfire diagnostic trouble code is stored.

(3) The diagnostic system may erase a diagnostic trouble code if

the same code is not re-registered in at least 40 engine warm-up

cycles, and the malfunction indicator light is not illuminated for that

code.

(4) Separate status codes, or readiness codes, shall be stored in

computer memory to identify correctly functioning emission control

systems and those emission control systems which require further

vehicle operation to complete proper diagnostic evaluation. A readiness

code need not be stored for those monitors that can be considered

continuously operating monitors (e.g., misfire monitor, fuel system

monitor, etc.). Readiness codes should never be set to ``not ready''

status upon key-on or key-off; intentional setting of readiness codes

to ``not ready'' status via service procedures must apply to all such

codes, rather than applying to individual codes.

(f) Available diagnostic data. (1) Upon determination of the first

malfunction of any component or system, ``freeze frame'' engine

conditions present at the time shall be stored in computer memory.

Should a subsequent fuel system or misfire malfunction occur, any

previously stored freeze frame conditions shall be replaced by the fuel

system or misfire conditions (whichever occurs first). Stored engine

conditions shall include, but are not limited to: engine speed, open or

closed loop operation, fuel system commands, coolant temperature,

calculated load value, fuel pressure, vehicle speed, air flow rate, and

intake manifold pressure if the information needed to determine these

conditions is available to the computer. For freeze frame storage, the

manufacturer shall include the most appropriate set of conditions to

facilitate effective repairs. If the diagnostic trouble code causing

the conditions to be stored is erased in accordance with paragraph (d)

of this section, the stored engine conditions may also be erased.

(2) The following data in addition to the required freeze frame

information shall be made available on demand through the serial port

on the standardized data link connector, if the information is

available to the on-board computer or can be determined using

information available to the on-board computer: Diagnostic trouble

codes, engine coolant temperature, fuel control system status (closed

loop, open loop, other), fuel trim, ignition timing advance, intake air

temperature, manifold air pressure, air flow rate, engine RPM, throttle

position sensor output value, secondary air status (upstream,

downstream, or atmosphere), calculated load value, vehicle speed, and

fuel pressure. The signals shall be provided in standard units based on

SAE specifications incorporated by

[[Page 28944]]

reference in paragraph (h) of this section. Actual signals shall be

clearly identified separately from default value or limp home signals.

(3) For all emission control systems for which specific on-board

evaluation tests are conducted (catalyst, oxygen sensor, etc.), the

results of the most recent test performed by the vehicle, and the

limits to which the system is compared shall be available through the

standardized data link connector per SAE J1979 specifications as

referenced in paragraph (h) of this section.

(4) Access to the data required to be made available under this

section shall be unrestricted and shall not require any access codes or

devices that are only available from the manufacturer.

(g) The emission control diagnostic system is not required to

evaluate systems or components during malfunction conditions if such

evaluation would result in a risk to safety or failure of systems or

components.

(h) Reference materials. The emission control diagnostic system

shall provide for standardized access and conform with the following

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards and/or the following

International Standards Organization (ISO) standards. The following

documents are incorporated by reference (see Sec. 86.1):

(1) SAE material. (i) SAE J1850 ``Class B Data Communication

Network Interface,'' (July 1995) shall be used as the on-board to off-

board communications protocol. All emission related messages sent to

the scan tool over a J1850 data link shall use the Cyclic Redundancy

Check and the three byte header, and shall not use inter-byte

separation or checksums.

(ii) Basic diagnostic data (as specified in sections 86.094-17(e)

and (f)) shall be provided in the format and units in SAE J1979 ``E/E

Diagnostic Test Modes,'' (July 1996).

(iii) Diagnostic trouble codes shall be consistent with SAE J2012

``Recommended Format and Messages for Diagnostic Trouble Code

Definitions,'' (July 1996) Part C.

(iv) The connection interface between the OBD system and test

equipment and diagnostic tools shall meet the functional requirements

of SAE J1962 ``Diagnostic Connector,'' (January 1995).

(2) ISO materials. (i) ISO 9141-2 ``Road vehicles--Diagnostic

systems--Part 2: CARB requirements for interchange of digital

information,'' (February 1994) may be used as an alternative to SAE

J1850 as the on-board to off-board communications protocol.

(ii) ISO 14230-4 ``Road vehicles--Diagnostic systems--KWP 2000

requirements for Emission-related systems'' (April 1996) may also be

used as the on-board to off-board network communications protocol.

(i) Deficiencies and alternate fueled vehicles. Upon application by

the manufacturer, the Administrator may accept an OBD system as

compliant even though specific requirements are not fully met. Such

compliances without meeting specific requirements, or deficiencies,

will be granted only if compliance would be infeasible or unreasonable

considering such factors as, but not limited to, technical feasibility

of the given monitor, lead time and production cycles including phase-

in or phase-out of engines or vehicle designs and programmed upgrades

of computers, and if any unmet requirements are not carried over from

the previous model year except where unreasonable hardware

modifications would be necessary to correct the non-compliance, and the

manufacturer has demonstrated an acceptable level of effort toward

compliance as determined by the Administrator. Furthermore, EPA will

not accept any deficiency requests that include the complete lack of a

required diagnostic monitor, with the possible exception of the special

provisions for alternate fueled vehicles. For alternate fueled vehicles

(e.g. natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, ethanol),

beginning with the model year for which alternate fuel emission

standards are applicable and extending through the 2004 model year,

manufacturers may request the Administrator to waive specific

monitoring requirements of this section for which monitoring may not be

reliable with respect to the use of the alternate fuel. At a minimum,

alternate fuel vehicles shall be equipped with an OBD system meeting

OBD requirements to the extent feasible as approved by the

Administrator.

(j) Demonstration of compliance with California OBD II requirements

(Title 13 California Code Sec. 1968.1), as modified pursuant to

California Mail Out 96-34 (October 25, 1996), shall

satisfy the requirements of this section, except that compliance with

Title 13 California Code Secs. 1968.1(b)(4.2.2), pertaining to

evaporative leak detection, and 1968.1(d), pertaining to tampering

protection, are not required to satisfy the requirements of this

section, and 1968.1(m)(5.1), pertaining to alternate fuel vehicles,

shall not apply.

8. A new section 86.099-30 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 86.99-30 Certification.

Section 86.099-30 includes text that specifies requirements that

differ from Sec. 86.094.30, Sec. 86.095-30, Sec. 86.096-30, or

Sec. 86.098-30. Where a paragraph in Sec. 86.094.30, Sec. 86.095-30,

Sec. 86.096-30, or 86.098-30 is identical and applicable to

Sec. 86.099-30, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding

paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. For guidance see

Sec. 86.094.30.'' or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.095-30.''

or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-30.'' or ``[Reserved].

For guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.''.

(a)(1) and (a)(2) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.

(a)(3)(i) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.

(a)(3)(ii) through (a)(4)(ii) [Reserved]. For guidance see

Sec. 86.095-30.

(a)(4)(iii) introductory text through (a)(4)(iii)(C) [Reserved].

For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.

(a)(4)(iv) introductory text [Reserved]. For guidance see

Sec. 86.095-30.

(a)(4)(iv)(A) through (a)(12) [Reserved]. For guidance see

Sec. 86.094-30.

(a)(13) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.095-30.

(a)(14) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.

(a)(15) through (a)(18) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-

30.

(a)(19) introductory text through (a)(19)(iii) [Reserved]. For

guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.

(b)(1) introductory text through (b)(1)(i)(B) [Reserved]. For

guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.

(b)(1)(i)(C) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.

(b)(1)(ii) through (b)(1)(iv) [Reserved]. For guidance see

Sec. 86.094-30.

(b)(2) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.

(b)(3) through (b)(4)(i) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-

30.

(b)(4)(ii) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098.30.

(b)(4)(ii)(A) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.

(b)(4)(ii)(B) through (b)(4)(iv) [Reserved]. For guidance see

Sec. 86.098-30.

(b)(5) through (e) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094.30.

(f) For engine families required to have an emission control

diagnostic system (an OBD system), certification will not be granted

if, for any emission data vehicle, assembly line vehicle, or other test

vehicle approved by the Administrator, the malfunction indicator light

does not illuminate under any of the following circumstances. Only

paragraph (f)(4) of this section applies to diesel cycle

[[Page 28945]]

vehicles where such vehicles are so equipped.

(1) A catalyst is replaced with a deteriorated or defective

catalyst, or an electronic simulation of such, resulting in an increase

of 1.5 times the HC standard above the HC emission level measured using

a representative 4000 mile catalyst system.

(2) An engine misfire condition is induced resulting in exhaust

emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable standards for HC, CO or

NOX.

(3) Any oxygen sensor is replaced with a deteriorated or defective

oxygen sensor, or an electronic simulation of such, resulting in

exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable standard for HC,

CO or NOX.

(4) A vapor leak is introduced in the evaporative and/or refueling

system (excluding the tubing and connections between the purge valve

and the intake manifold) greater than or equal in magnitude to a leak

caused by a 0.040 inch diameter orifice, or the evaporative purge air

flow is blocked or otherwise eliminated from the complete evaporative

emission control system.

(5) A malfunction condition is induced in any emission-related

powertrain system or component, including but not necessarily limited

to, the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system, if equipped, the

secondary air system, if equipped, and the fuel control system,

singularly resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times the

applicable emission standard for HC, CO or NOX.

(6) A malfunction condition is induced in an electronic emission-

related powertrain system or component not otherwise described above

that either provides input to or receives commands from the on-board

computer resulting in a measurable impact on emissions.

[FR Doc. 97-13749 Filed 5-27-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P